Science is also an intense rivalry- to be first, to be right, to be everlasting.
On Aug 4, 7:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I gave up on the Matrix when I realised Nerds thought it neat. Some > animations are better acted than traditional film and some avatars > already seem smarter than we manage as a mob. I want Vam to be right > on some form of simple apprehension, but suspect he isn't in the end. > Even in Allan's 'play' we can still ask 'what's it all about Alfie'? > I do 'sense' along your lines Allan. > > We can't reach philosophical conclusion of this, but we can turn the > 'attitude' on normal areas of life like the struggle to earn through > work and the futility of this as governments spend on wars we can't > afford and slash wages in a mad scheme that allows money to make money > rather than rewarding labour. Economics is similarly 'empty' of > purpose. An old friend is over from the States (we were soldiers) and > he was bemoaning the collapse of our pub life here. The reason is > obvious - in 30 years wages have fallen to such a massive extent that > the bottom 20%, who used to hold 15% of the country's cash at any > given time, now has less than 1% of it. Being Zombies they haven't > noticed and are now drinking themselves to death at home on cheap > cider. > > I suppose I suggest there is something of Chomsky in the notion we > might be Zombies - the same reasoning tends to deconstruct most of our > cherished institutions. What we lack is some sense of the other side > of the deconstruction. This is what concerns me - what is belief once > you know belief is arbitrary? What is in the feeling of despair that > knowing this can bring? I'm always struck as a scientist that I give > up easy social and traditional explanation and that this lacks > something. > > On Aug 4, 12:45 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hm, I see the problem, but sustainable knowledge communication has become > > more flexible even in its firmness compared to the days of truths being > > written in stone, don't you think? Just watch our new blog culture, everyone > > can be the scribor of their own script! > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, allan deheretic <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > neo to his script > > > Allan > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Which hard wiring are you referring to? Neo to Keanu Reeves or Neo to his > > >> script? > > > >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:04 AM, allan deheretic > > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >>> the problem with Neo is he is hard wired into the system > > >>> and dependent on the hard wiring > > >>> Allan > > > >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:05 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> How about old Jesus' speed at ascension? Wouldn't he count as > > >>>> unconstrained by agency at that point in time? Without the being Neo > > >>>> burden, > > >>>> I mean? > > > >>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> " If you think you have free will > > >>>>> because you can choose between varieties of toy and other ADMASS > > >>>>> drivel then pass on by - free will for me would concern beating > > >>>>> Einstein's speed of light and its constrictions - but even then I > > >>>>> would not know I was free rather than selecting from pre-programmed > > >>>>> alternatives or being switched." > > > >>>>> Are you still identified with Neo, in Matrix ? > > > >>>>> What has free will to do with anything concerning Einstein or speed of > > >>>>> light ? > > >>>>> I find the association demented. > > > >>>>> How is free will, the exercise of choice, in a toy shop any different > > >>>>> from the same in any other situation ? > > > >>>>> The Wiki says : Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make > > >>>>> choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Isn't it what you are > > >>>>> speaking of ? > > > >>>>> On Aug 3, 5:34 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > Much wise in what you say RP and indeed, Orn, many believe they have > > >>>>> > no dreams at all. I note Polkid is beginning his serial killer > > >>>>> > trip. > > >>>>> > I'm not very keen on these tricky questions we can't answer but can > > >>>>> > use to expose naive and unexamined lives. I went on a long walk > > >>>>> > with > > >>>>> > some old colleagues who moved into brain science some years back and > > >>>>> > it was noticeable that they are all more convinced free will does > > >>>>> > not > > >>>>> > exist than I. Humankind seems generally pathetic against the > > >>>>> vastness > > >>>>> > we seem to have some awareness of and nothing is given to us as to > > >>>>> > what to do > > > >>>>> > I have little interest in pursuing the question of free will - in > > >>>>> > normal dialogue of words, concepts, shapes and patterns I see no end > > >>>>> > to it and many sides. Humankind does little in any of this as far > > >>>>> > as > > >>>>> > we can guess and has no direction on what to seek to achieve we can > > >>>>> > guess. We may know more in the future, but also may not be the > > >>>>> > future. We accede to five senses, though 20 may be more accurate > > >>>>> > and > > >>>>> > at least 2 more are known in dolphins than we possess. I can tell a > > >>>>> > story of cooling hydrogen molecules and H3+ in the forming of stars > > >>>>> > which were our birth that suggest some form of 'shaping knowledge' > > >>>>> > even in the inorganic and the tale of the most, that that must be > > >>>>> > but > > >>>>> > which we cannot see and yet I can only describe my own free will in > > >>>>> > comparison with uninspiring robots. Some god might unplug us at any > > >>>>> > time. > > >>>>> > Much of the brain science going on finds that human beings do not > > >>>>> make > > >>>>> > rational decisions. I suspect they may have been wasting their > > >>>>> > electrodes, as most of us are so poor at critical reasoning it > > >>>>> > wouldn't make sense for us to use it. We may not be far off a robot > > >>>>> > programmed with emotional responses that match or exceed our own. I > > >>>>> > believe most people are tranced and cannot think their way out of a > > >>>>> > wet paper bag. This is not unusual in pack and herd conditions.This > > >>>>> > is a biological trance in my view. > > >>>>> > For me there has to be more than the striving of science and I don't > > >>>>> > want this to be a religious crock. If you think you have free will > > >>>>> > because you can choose between varieties of toy and other ADMASS > > >>>>> > drivel then pass on by - free will for me would concern beating > > >>>>> > Einstein's speed of light and its constrictions - but even then I > > >>>>> > would not know I was free rather than selecting from pre-programmed > > >>>>> > alternatives or being switched. > > >>>>> > The questions come after this 'indecision' as do those of what is > > >>>>> > observing and its picture. > > > >>>>> > On Aug 2, 10:59 pm, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > i killed a dog.. my zombieness made me do it.... > > > >>>>> > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:21 PM, archytas <[email protected]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > > "We have access to a technology that would have looked like > > >>>>> sorcery in > > >>>>> > > > Descartes's day: the ability to peer inside someone's head and > > >>>>> read > > >>>>> > > > their thoughts. Unfortunately, that doesn't take us any nearer > > >>>>> > > > to > > >>>>> > > > knowing whether they are sentient. "Even if you measure > > >>>>> brainwaves, > > >>>>> > > > you can never know exactly what experience they represent," says > > >>>>> > > > psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of Bristol, UK. If > > >>>>> > > > anything, brain scanning has undermined Descartes's maxim. You, > > >>>>> too, > > >>>>> > > > might be a zombie. "I happen to be one myself," says Stanford > > >>>>> > > > University philosopher Paul Skokowski. "And so, even if you > > >>>>> > > > don't > > >>>>> > > > realise it, are you." Skokowski's assertion is based on the > > >>>>> belief, > > >>>>> > > > particularly common among neuroscientists who study brain scans, > > >>>>> that > > >>>>> > > > we do not have free will. There is no ghost in the machine; our > > >>>>> > > > actions are driven by brain states that lie entirely beyond our > > >>>>> > > > control. "I think, therefore I am" might be an illusion. > > >>>>> > > > So, it may well be that you live in a computer simulation in > > >>>>> which you > > >>>>> > > > are the only self-aware creature. I could well be a zombie and > > >>>>> > > > so > > >>>>> > > > could you. Have an interesting day." (from a recent New > > >>>>> Scientist) > > > >>>>> > > > We range over debates in free will and what it is to be human. > > >>>>> > > > So > > >>>>> far > > >>>>> > > > we haven't established free will or even that we are not merely > > >>>>> > > > avatars in 'something else's game'. > > > >>>>> > > > I wonder whether there are advantages in considering ourselves > > >>>>> > > > as > > >>>>> > > > creatures limited by programming and also capable of it? > > > >>>>> > > -- > > >>>>> > > EverComing > > > >>> -- > > >>> ( > > >>> ) > > >>> I_D Allan > > > >>> If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > > >>> Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, > > > > -- > > > ( > > > ) > > > I_D Allan > > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > > > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
